“I have a mustard seed, and I’m not afraid to use it”

All who love the Free World heard with sadness today’s news of the abdication of Pope Benedict XVI, whose physical infirmity caused him to step down from the chair of St. Peter. As the shepherd of the founding institution of the West, Benedict personally embodied its best traditions. He is one of the last men living to have assimilated the fullness of European culture, a member of the “heroic generation” of Catholic theologians that included Henri de Lubac and Hans Urs von Balthasar.

We will remember many acts of intellectual courage from this pope. One in particular comes to mind today, namely his speech at the University of Regensburg on September 12, 2006. In the face of great controversy, Benedict cited the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologue: “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” And he added:

The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. “God,” he says, “is not pleased by blood—and not acting reasonably is contrary to God’s nature.” . . .The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: Not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature. . . . The editor [of the Greek text from which Benedict is quoting], Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-­evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazm went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that ­nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God’s will, we would even have to practice ­idolatry.

Benedict’s commitment to theological truth as he understood it at the expense of political correctness is unique among today’s religious leaders.

Jewish communities in particular have reason for sadness at Benedict’s abdication. He is a true friend of the Jewish people. As Israeli journalist Assaf Sagiv wrote in the Autumn 2009 issue of the quarterly journal Azure on the occasion of the Pope’s May 2009 visit to Israel:

Benedict XVI—the former Joseph Ratzinger—is actually one of the best friends the Jewish people has ever had in Vatican City. On the eve of the pope’s visit, Aviad Kleinberg, a scholar of Christian history and a columnist for the Israeli daily Yediot Aharonot, attempted to remind his readers of this. Ratzinger, he explained, “was the confidant of Pope John Paul II, and his immense theological authority was a critical aspect of the previous pope’s moves…. John Paul and Ratzinger buried once and for all not only the accusation of the Jews’ murdering the messiah, but the entire theological theory that the Christians replaced the Jews and are now the Chosen People and that the New Testament annuls the Old Testament. The Old Testament is still valid, declared the two, and the Jewish people is still God’s chosen and beloved people.”

I wrote at the time on the website of the religious magazine First Things where I was then an editor:

Benedict’s unprecedented efforts to draw near to Judaism as a religion were summarized by the Bonn University theologian Karl-Heinz Menke, who argues that His Holiness is the first pope since St. Peter to read the whole of the Gospels as a Jewish work. From a theological standpoint, the Jewish people have had no better friend in the Vatican since the founding of Christianity.

36 Comments, 26 Threads

1.
Alexis

A great summary of the work of Joseph Ratzinger, Pope Benedictus XVI.

Just a small remark: you write about “the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez”. Roger Arnaldez was an Islamologist, a specialist of Muslim religion, however he does not seem to have been a Muslim -at least I have not been able to find a reference to him having been one, much less an Islamist.

Do you have any information to the opposite? Or maybe you meant in fact “specialist of Islam”, in which case I would suggest to clarify “Islamist”?

Anyways, it’s a innovation to resign from such a position, before, the popes, even when they were senile had their grey eminences for carrying on the “message”. Since Italy is in turmoil, banks scandals, Berlusconi referring to Muslosni… it’s the capharnaum ! Anyway, there’s still a pope at the BCE !

Sad to see him leave. And his quote about parting with the notion of a popular church is awfully sad, too.

When I was a child in Irish Catholic Boston of he ’50s it certainly seemed as if the Church were solidly woven into the lives of the people. I can’t figure out quite what happened to make it go away so thoroughly.

19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

On my wall facing the west I have a watercolor I painted with the finish date 2/28/1994 of Obama and two pelicans that i look to as the 2 headed dragon then has been at that spot for 7 years. On the painting is a Roman Catholic Cross. Above is another painting by my daughter of a Lion and a grackle next to the Lion which always arrives here from the south the last week of Feb.Then on the bottom is my watercolor of two spring time mourning doves ready to have babies.

obama with Hagel Kerry and Brennan are in a better position to unite the world against Iran getting a nuke . The meeting in March with the Prime minster of Israel I pray will seal this decision and Thomas Friedman and Paul Krugman on the fence will see the need to take action if the religious leaders in iran remain stubborn and seem to get frisky; They need to see the GLORY of ALLAH come down from heaven in form of a nuke to stop Satan the DEvil from his plan of nuking Israel Even if that is not what their intent is Satan know how to get the war started
In your paranoia you may believe the two headed dragon is from “sauron” . But we live in the modern world not the ancient with Jesus doing his business for the past 2000 years despite Christians being taken over by Satan the Devil as power corrupts the best brightest and even the CHOSEN ONES as Jesus say in Matthew 24 would happen

Instead of male child be swallowed by the feet by the snake ,the snake swallow started with the head and a billion more Roman Catholics are added to the great church all speaking in the tongues of Angels . They may look like idiots to the brainy types but they given the power Like Saint Peter had to heal the blind and raise the dead. God willing

David – I believe that you have written that you are an associate of Rabbi M. Soloveichik? It would be interesting to read of an exchange of views between the two of you on a position which I believe you’ve cited before, that Judaism and Christianity are “complimentary (from Wyschogrod?)” in some theological sense? My sense was that “complimentary” implies that Judaism should view Christianity, as being an authentic relationship with the God of Israel, in a way which is closer than that of all other religions. I think this would be a step beyond where R. Soloveichik is willing to go.

I don’t know what “associate” means. I was Rabbi Soloveichik’s editor at First Things, and I am a member of the synagogue where he is Associate Rabbi. And I should add that I am a great admirer of his work, written as well as pastoral. He has written a great deal on Judaism and Christianity, including this:http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/09/torah-and-incarnation

“associate” – a term I use to describe a relationship for which I don’t know details. W/respect to R. Solovechik, if you have had the opportunity of more extensive conversations it would be have been interesting to hear a comparison of your POVs.

After reading many of your essays and following much of the conversation from the old Atol board I have read all of Joseph Ratzinger’s books and found them almost essential reading for a man who pursues knowledge of the living God. His resignation is both shocking and to a degree confusing. I do hope that the next Pope will be able to clarify the role of not only Catholicism but also of the role of the west in the next generation.

“Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul”

I hope his thought is more sophisticated than this suggests. I guess the Crusades were a mistake after all: Deus Vult!

Those of us who are willing to fight for freedom will remember those who chose not to fight. And when the time comes to divvy up the rights we have secured from tyrants and ideologies, cowards will be omitted from the convention. And should we lose I’m sure the Moslems and Communists will be as charitable as their natures allow towards Christian pacifists.

There are questions that need answers. What is Jerusalem to become in the future ,the throne of Babylon or the Throne of Holy?
Only Moses and Jesus that I know of could say these words standing in the Presence of God: Man must live not on bread alone but from every utterance from the mouth of the Lord. Man has a hard time with these words after a few days of hunger.
Will Jerusalem become the Throne of Babylon before it becomes the throne of holy?
What is God’s will for Jerusalem in our day? What do those in prayer to God see? Would Iran getting a nuclear weapon make Israel flee away from war and into the arms of THe Holy God or must Iran be humbled to set the Jews free to find their Holy God? Questions Questions Questions
Isaiah 2: 4
“He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore.”

“Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul” … I’m sure the Moslems and Communists will be as charitable as their natures allow towards Christian pacifists.

Interpreting Benedict’s statement (from his Regensberg address) as an endorsement of pacifism is a pretty gross misunderstanding. If you read the whole speech – a worthwhile exercise – it’s pretty clear that he’s talking about violence as compulsion, specifically compulsion as it applies to religious belief. This is perfectly consistent with Catholic theology, the concept of free will. To Catholic teaching, the critical aspect of faith is precisely that it is freely chosen and represents the genuine turning of the individual towards God.

Also, Benedict would be the last person to accuse of the classic pacifism of the so-called ‘Christian Left’. He was the one who, as a Cardinal, directly denounced the Consistent Life Ethic/Seamless Garment argument (advanced by the contemptible Joseph Bernardin):

“Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger”

While Benedict XVI might cite Emperor Manuel II Paleologos stating that Islam brought nothing but blood into the world, it is interesting that neither you nor any of your responders mentioned the wholesale destruction of native American religions and societies by the very same Catholic Church less than 100 years later. Just because you might have a problem with Islam, it does not mean you can white-wash history of the crimes committed by the institution that you currently laud.

We might have to part with the notion of a popular Church. It is possible that we are on the verge of a new era in the history of the Church, under circumstances very different from those we have faced in the past, when Christianity will resemble the mustard seed [Matthew 13:31-32], that is, will continue only in the form of small and seemingly insignificant groups, which yet will oppose evil with all their strength and bring Good into this world.

This statement reminds me of the phrase attributed to Cardinal Francis George regarding the future of authentic Christianity in the United States…

a statement released by Cardinal George’s spokesperson: “I am (correctly) quoted as saying that I expected to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square. What is omitted from the reports is a final phrase I added about the bishop who follows a possibly martyred bishop: ‘His successor will pick up the shards of a ruined society and slowly help rebuild civilization, as the church has done so often in human history.’ What I said is not ‘prophetic’ but a way to force people to think outside of the usual categories that limit and sometimes poison both private and public discourse.”

As Bishop of Rome Cardinal Ratzinger was also a friend of the Orthodox Christians, inviting Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev (God willing, the next Patriarch of Russia) to the Vatican, as well as Orthodox chorus groups. I also believe he encouraged the dialogue between the Serbian Patriarchate and the Croatian bishop/s.

On 5 October 2008, Alfeyev took part in the “Bible marathon” organized by the Italian state TV channel RAI-Uno. He read Chapter Two from the Book of Genesis, immediately following Pope Benedict XVI, who read Chapter One. Alfeyev was followed by 1246 readers from various countries.

In September 2009, at the invitation of Cardinal Walter Kasper, he visited Pope Benedict XVI and several officials of the Roman Curia who have key roles in Roman Catholic ecumenical dialogue.

Neither the Catholic Church nor Spain during the conquest of the Americas destroyed any societies. I live in latin america, and in all of our countries there is a very noticeable presence of pre-columbian peoples. And some of its languages survive today. And even some of its religious practices (like the cult of the Pachamama in the southern Andean region). And the native peoples of the Americas were not shipped overseas to be sold as slaves, by a deliberate prohibition from the spanish King. The Jesuit fathers had their Reductions, where they taught the guarani indians in their own language, and where indians were preserved from capitalist exploitation and portuguese slave trade. Until the ideas from Iluminist Europe put an end to that.
Clearly the catholic spaniards (or the portuguese for that matter) did not commit anything close to the genocide the english and american protestants perpetrated in North America. Have the Queen or the US President already apologized for that genocide?.

the Inca Empire was conquered. As was Scotland by the english. But that is not genocide or wholesale societal destruction. It was brutal, but not more brutal that what christians did to each other in Europe. Certainly the conquest of the Americas was probably far less brutal than the Thirty Years War. There was no Magdeburg in the Spanish conquest of the Americas. My point is: it was brutal. But not particularly so because it was catholic. And very probably, catholicism made it softer that it could have been. Where is the english or american Father Bartolomé de Las Casas?.

As for the Crusades, its aim was never to forcefully convert muslims, but to free the Holy Land from the Seljuk Turks. And before launching the Crusade, the Popes had patiently watched for 400 years, as the muslims conquered by force Palestine, Syria, Egypt, Libia, Tunisia, Numidia (Algeria), Morocco, Sicily, and Spain. And even tried their luck at France. All of them christian lands, mind you.
And, the terrible Crusades notwithstanding, in 1683, 600 years after the first Crusade, the Turks were still putting Vienna under siege.

Rupert Shortt offers some thoughts on the Pope’s resignation: “Even John Paul II, renowned for the doggedness with which he pursued his ministry in the face of chronic ill health, is said to have entrusted his private secretary with a resignation letter to be published if he reached a certain level of incapacity.”

John Paul toughed it out, but Shortt suggests that “the effect on the Church was very mixed. The barque of Peter was steered this way and that by competing Vatican officials, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger among them. The contrast between sclerosis at the top, and the vibrant grassroots of the Church in Latin America, Africa and Asia, looked stark.”
This is good the snake do his business so a billion Roman Catholic converts speak in tongues of the Angels heal the sick and raise rge dead to life , God willing
This sclerosis I may not know what it is but I know it sounds real bad and I want to avoid this like the plague and not make my peers jealous as my 61 year old flesh body look like I am now 20 and even my 4 month old limp is leaving from leaping with full force into the whirlwind of hurricane Sandy and I even sterted to run again something good to do before i LEAP but my daughter beat me in the race so this is not instant healing I see, yet.(enough about me )

Thank you Mr. Goldman for this fine piece on His Holiness. It is probably his influence and that of Blessed John Paul II that at Mass we often pray for the “peace and happiness of the Jewish people.” Benedict XVI will go down as the greatest writer among the modern-era popes. I have no doubt that at some point he will become a Doctor of the Church. I hope your testimony is cited as well. It is unfortunate that he is stepping down but he deserves the rest — a good and faithful servant in whom God and His people are well pleased. And like all good priests he answered the call of service especially if it meant sacrificing his own wishes. Yet he will be remembered as a great teacher for the reasons stated above. Again thank you.

“And what really happened at the Friday meeting? Though held in secret, reports in the Italian press claim there was a heated argument between the men over the fraught question of how the Church should deal with clergy accused of sexual abuse.”

There is a bit of historical revisionism going on lately as to what happened to late roman empire.

Its generally known that the prosperous provinces of north Africa and Spain were conquered by the Moslems after 600 ad.

What modern archaeology is showing is that the coastal cities on the north shore of the Mediterranean along southern France and Italy were sacked and burned after about 640 AD.

Subsequently, castles were built inland from the coast suggesting the people were protecting themselves from sea raiders. Its thought that the raiders were likely the moslems.

Since the roman cities were intact before 640 and leveled afterwards–this is causing a rethink as to who was responsible for the death of the Roman empire in the west. That rather than being the Gauls — is was the moslems.

16. Javier
……….
The biggest killer of pre Colombian peoples was the diseases that Europeans brought with them. the people of the Americas simply had no resistance to them. They died in mass in both north and south America.

Cortez and his men were generally thought to have killed many of the Aztecs. what’s generally known is that they practiced human sacrifice. what’s less well known is that their priests were homosexuals. they would “act up” right in front of Cortez and his men. Cortez’s reaction was much the same as that of Joshua and Moses when they encountered Canaanites with similar practices.

A book entitled “Conquest of New Spain” by Cortez’s oldest lieutenant Bernal Diaz chronicles the events of that day. It was only translated into English in the 1980′s.

you are right, but disease was not something the spaniards willfully used as a weapon. They were mostly in the dark about how germs worked, I think. Pedro de Mendoza, the first founder of my city -Buenos Aires- was a spanish veteran of the wars of Italy, who had contracted syphilis while campaigning there (well, not exactly while campaigning. You get the idea). He thought there was some sort of Fountain of Youth here that could cure his disease. That seems to have been the extent of their knowledge on infectious deseases.

As an older person I felt the Pope was right to give up the office he could no longer fulfill for health reasons and spend what time remains to him in a monastery pursuing his spiritual life. I find that inspiring.

"........I singled out Ratzinger because his willingness to "part from the notion of a popular Church" seemed like the best choice in an epoch when, as he wrote, fewer people want to accept the yoke of Christ. As an anonymous essayist, it was easier for me to comment on Catholic matters in 2005 than it is as a Jewish writer today. If it seems untoward to meddle in the business of another religion, I can only say that the Catholic Church is not simply another religion but also the founding institution of the West, so that all who love the West have an interest in its affairs. .........."